ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2019
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Characterization and Antibiotic Resistance of Broad-SpectrumInternational journal of microbiology · 2026Article
- Isolation and Characterization of LyticViruses · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was retrospective, conducted over seven years at the Trauma and Burn Centre. Its purpose was to establish the bacteriological profile and antibiotic resistance of isolated bacteria in patients admitted to the Burn Intensive Care Unit. Identification was carried out according to the conventional methods and antibiotic susceptibility was analyzed according to the standards of the Antibiogram Committee of the French Society of Microbiology. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the main isolated bacterium, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii. These strains were isolated mainly from haemocultures (37%). The resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftazidime increased from 9.2% in 2012 to 53.5% in 2018. The resistance to imipenem and ciprofloxacin was 63.3% and 42.9%, respectively. Four strains were resistant to colistin. The resistance of S. aureus to meticillin decreased from 65.3% in 2012 to 41.6% in 2018. All strains were susceptible to glycopeptides, tigecycline and linezolid. A. baumannii was multi-resistant to antibiotics with 81.8% resistance to ceftazidime, 88.9% to amikacin, 90.5% to ciprofloxacin and 94.5% to imipenem. Sixteen strains were resistant to colistin. Concerning K. pneumoniae, 77.5% of strains were resistant to cefotaxime and 5.2% to imipenem. Two strains were resistant to colistin. Vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus faecium increased from 33.4% in 2012 to 72.2% in 2018. Multidrug resistance in burn patients calls for an epidemiological surveillance of bacterial ecology and the application of hygiene measures.
Identifiers
32313533PMC7155405W3094735686What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.